tv Washington Journal EE News Natural Resources Editor Noelle Straub... CSPAN August 18, 2017 6:59am-8:04am EDT
schedule, go to booktv.org. live today on c-span, "washington journal. his next. if tenant like a.m., the u.s. commission on civil rights meet to examine the justice department enforcement of the voting rights act. coming up, and look at the trump administration's review of protective federal lands. on the reviewaub of more than two dozen national monument designations made by the obama administration. at 8:30 a.m., utah state representative might know all, rate -- mike noel. borders of thee monument in southeastern utah.
at 9:40 coming kathleen, president of western energy alliance, talks about will and gas on federal .ost: good morning president trump traveling to camp david today for a series of midday meetings with his less president, defense secretary, the secretary of state and his national security team. on the agenda, the path forward in afghanistan and the situation in north korea. i do expect a readout of those meetings but so far no public statements are here. the latest from barcelona, spain, as well as the new york times story on president trump in the white house. we want to focus on another story, federal lands and its review of addicted areas out
west. you can see -- review of protected areas out west. you can see what we are talking about. 47% of the land out west, a majority of the land is owned by federal government. first, the very latest from barcelona and these headlines from spanish-speaking newspapers and photographs. reporting this morning that police have captured and killed five suspected terrorists. there is a second vehicle tack after an earlier one barcelona killing 13, injuring 80 others. the men linked to the barcelona attack to the ones killed according to spanish officials. police are still hunting for the man who drove his van to the crowd barcelona yesterday. spain's prime minister describing it as a jihadist attack. .sis claiming responsibility
that story from the bcc -- from the bbc. also from the new york times, more on the trump white house. this is the white house -- this is the headlines -- here is the reporting front page from the new york times -- senator bob corker questioning the residence stability and senator tim scott, the only black republican in the senate declaring chops moral authority -- declaring chops moral .uthority undermined our focus is federal lands.
we want to share with you with the president said earlier this year. >> altogether, the previous administration i passed the states to place over 265 million acres -- that is a lot of land. 200 65 million acres of land and water under federal control through the abuse of the monuments designation. that is larger than the entire state of texas. in december of last year alone, the federal government asserted this power over 1.35 million acres of land in utah known as bears years. -- bears years. i hear it is beautiful. over the profound objections of the citizens of utah. the antiquities act does not give the federal government unlimited power to lock up
millions of acres of land and water and it is time we ended this abusive practice. host: that was the president joined by mike pence and secretary zinke he we want to open our phone lines and get your comments. we are dividing our lines regionally. noelle straub is the natural resources editor. thank you for being guest: with us. -- for being with us. guest: thank you for having us. .t has been very controversial people don't always get along with her landlords. there is a law that congress passed in 1906 called the antiquities act that gives
residents power to designate lands as national monuments and put them into a very protected state. president obama used this quite a bit and went president trump came into office, he wants to take another look at all of the land that obama designated, because he feels it should not be as locked up into such protected status. president does land, can a subsequent president rescind that? guest: that is a good question. no president has ever tried to eliminate a monument that a previous president designated. if president trump tries to do that, it will definitely land in the courts. it is an unresolved legal question. people on both sides think they have the upper hand.
it is something the courts would have to decide. host: how did the federal courts get this land? guest: originally they but the woozy -- the louisiana purchase. the acquired the land from foreign government and so that is why there is so much western land. the federal government try to give away a lot of land through the homesteading act -- tried to give away the land through the homesteading act. there is a lot of mountainous and very. -- very air and land out west. switche conservation act , it went from the government giving away land to the government trying to protect land. to give you a sense of the amount of land, let's take a couple of samples. the state of alaska, the federal government owning the vast majority of land in that state, over 61 percent.
.- over 61 percent over half of the land is owned by the federal government. the rest of the land, much less percent, 4.2%. over a quarter of the percent is owned and operated by the federal government. agenciesere is for that are part of the made for. -- the main four. land.% of the there is also the defense department that has military installations. there's other agencies that have some of the -- but the vast majority is managed by those four agencies. not considered federal land. those are owned by the tribes. the federal government will manage them by the tribes --
managed them for the tribes. host: you develop on these lands? guest: it depends on the designation. conserved forre the public to enjoy. recreation but it is also mining, drilling, grazing. it depends on the type of land. host: let's go back to this executive order. it reads in part -- i goes back to the clinton administration.
who would that involve? guest: anywhere from local governments to industry in the area to conservation groups to tribes. tribes play a big role out west. anybody that lives in the land or wants on the land, would be involved in these discussions. host: we are going to hear a lot ears.bears years -- bears left office, obama .e designated bears ears there's historical aspects and cultural aspects. it is a beautiful area. there's a lot of species that are protected but it is very controversial because it is very large. so the lawmakers in utah a very upset.
upset.tah are very people who live in the state should have a lot more say. they would rather not have the federal government running the area. even if you took away the designation, the federal government would still own the land but the monument designation is a much more restrictive as to what uses it will have. what let me read to you president obama said was the designation. we will hear from the republican state representative from utah who wants to see changes at what can the president do? guest: they are considering multiple options like shrink the
size of the monument and protect very specific areas and let the rest not be a monument. they could also possibly resend the monument altogether. they could try to. probably whichever decision they make, it will end up in court because it is such a controversial issue. people are ready fired up on both sides. they could either shrink it or try to eliminate it. host: we are talking about this because we expect a decision within the next week, right? guest: his recommendations are due by thursday. host: let's get to your phone calls. noelle straub will be with us. from go to brad joining us lake wales, florida. caller: good morning. hi. everything ist
almost apparent as if it is 1851 and all the way that everything is going down in my view. almost likeed into a middle east country taking over everything and destroying this country. almost like -- this country is into a civil war with a viewpoints of all the people who love president king, donald trump. it is just away a lot of people see it. they are so happy that now we have this guy. host: thank you for this call. take this call and parlayed into the events. guest: the controversy is very strong. there have been times in the past -- in the 1970's and 1980's there was a movement called the sagebrush rebellion.
that was a similar controversy where people felt the federal government was taking a too big a hand in the west and owning too much land. there was a similar movement and then ronald reagan came to office and that died down. it is kind of cyclical. it does seem to the extreme right now, people are fired up. this controversy has flared over and over throughout the course of u.s. history. host: david from las vegas, good morning. caller: hi. they are to keep the federal lands with the monuments in place. there are not many place to go and enjoy with the amount of people we have in this country. if we give up those federal ,ands, that are being preserved and have everybody living in towers.
host: going to show you this area of the u.s.. noelle straub, as you look at .his -- alaska, 61.3% nevada, nearly 80% about half the land and california is owned by the federal government. 48% in wyoming. nearly 30% in montana. guest: it is incredible how much federal land there is yet to take into account the geography of the area. it is very dry, desert areas. there is mountainous areas and places that would probably not be used for agriculture or presidential purposes. purposes.dential even if they take away the national monument designation, the land will remain federal. it is a question of how they will manage it. host: this is a question from
steve. his mining a part of this debate? -- is mining a part of this debate? guest: it certainly is. if president trump tries to shrink or eliminate the monuments, the thing that could happen, people could go into those areas and steak mining claims. it would be interesting to see what would happen the cause this fight will be going on in court, people could be going in and staking mining claims which would make it even more complicated. what deed do with these mining claims that happened? host: this is from carroll. any estimate on what we pay? guest: there is no budget because long with designating a
national monument. when a president designates a monument, he signed a declaration and there is no funding. that is one of the things that the interior secretary has said. if we are going to create bears ears, he would like to be more facilities so people can use the land. the designation doesn't come with any spending. >> in some cases, and monument designations have placed public lands off-limits for grazing, fishing, mining, multiple use and even outdoor recreation. ineminder that is described was abuzz arch -- in roosevelt's arch, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. that is our mission.
somewhere along the way, the act has become a tool of clinical -- tool of political advocacy. host: that from ryan zinke. this tweet from our friend my bloomberg -- our friend, mylan burke. guest: teddy roosevelt was the president who signed the antiquities act into law. so, part of the interesting heart of the controversy is the language of the act was to protect cultural or scientific or historic areas. the way the antiquities act came about is back around the turn of the 1900s, there were pot
hunters. different pot than we think of today who would go out onto federal land and look for artifacts and antiquities, hence the name of the law, that they would try to take these ancient artifacts of the land. congress passed the law to keep people from stealing these things off the land. but when teddy roosevelt signed the law, he then designated the that monument as something is a geological interest. he designated devils tower which is a formation. do aose interestingly to geologic formation rather than something more cultural. he had a more expansive view of the law. , we welcome straub our c-span radio audience. we're focusing on the issue of federal lands. we take your phone calls.
read from -- rot from yakima, washington. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am calling to express my dismay at the fact that our president would consider turning beautiful wild areas into mining projects. demonstrates he is not concerned about preserving what is great and what is beautiful about america and turning it into commerce, turning it into business. i think it is ironic as well that he wants to roll back monuments. he wants to take back that status and allow business to come in and break the land. at the same time, he wants to confederate flag and confederate badges. host: your final point.
caller: i am at a loss to understand how that works. host: thank you. we will get a response. our thanks for these photographs from the wilderness society. guest: that comment goes to the heart of the country received. it comes down to how you view the role of the federal government. is the federal government there to create jobs? economy or is the federal government meant to protect and conserve places? it is not an either/or choice. that comes down to the heart of why people take one side or the other. people feel very strongly that these special places should be conserved. that says is from jim , don't the ranchers pay?
they do pay.est: there is a long put in place to require ranchers to pay. there have been ranchers who have decided they are not going to pay. example.the prime you backed up over $1 million in grazing fees that he did not pay. landthe bureau of management officials try to come and take his cattle off of private land, a lot of his supporters came. they showed armed. there was an armed standoff between the agents in the militia -- and the militia. now bundy is going on trial next month as a result. host: will go to gary in sterling, virginia. caller: good morning. i would like to say i am no genius. i had a job seeking fruit eight miles south of phoenix.
back in 1970. we should be using our natural resources. .hat is the low hanging fruit i can't understand for the life of me why we are not using our natural gas bonanza that would hit our buses on the i-95 corridor. 1115 -- 1100, 1500 feet above it there is a cloud that stretches from miami to portland, maine. wast time i went up, it 1963 and there was only a plume of smoke from richmond up to boston. now it stretches all the way from miami to portland, maine. host: garay, things for the
call. gast: there is natural developed on public lands. those of the lands managed by blm. they offer parcels to the industry. there is a natural gas developing going on, whether they can get it to the east coast and use it for transportation is another question. host: kenneth is joining us. caller: i wish to agree with the gentleman from washington. i think federal lands should as they are. we should fight this tooth and nail because ever since teddy theevelt started designation of public lands in national parks, they have been under constant assault. constant assault by those whose commercial and greed
and for profit. if we don't -- by the way, those lands belong to all of us. they don't belong to the people in the government. they belong to the citizens. guest: that also goes to the heart of the argument. they do. you're right. the federal lands belong to all taxpayers. we all help support them. however, views differ on how much input local and state officials should have on management. people who live out west generally think local and state residents should have a lot more input on how the lands are managed since they live right there. sort of like being a good neighbor. they are federal lands. there has always been a tension in between keeping lance federal for all people -- keeping lands
federal from people. host: will continue to show you scenes. it will show you tweets raising quite a debate on our twitter page. this is from another viewer saying -- is that a fair statement? i said, even if they took away the monument designation, the lands would remain federal. they might be managed differently. they are not going to go away. host: we should be very clear. we are talking about federal lands and not national parks. that: national monuments are designated by the intricacies act are just by the antiquities act are separate from national parks land -- national park lands. lands that congress created the can be run by the parks service. haveig ones out west that
caused the controversy are generally run by the bureau of land management. there are different monuments in different areas and some were created by the antiquities act in some were not. some are managed by different agencies. from thisou can see map, there's a smattering of east coast, an area in western pennsylvania. new england along the everglades in the south and the appalachian area. the majority is out west. states, no changes recommended to these national monuments including the canyons of the ancient in colorado, the ,raters of the moon in idaho washington state, the grand canyon in arizona, the upper missouri river breaks in montana. have you been to any of these areas? guest: i have not personally p diameter editor so i'm usually behind a desk.
personally hear it i am usually behind a desk. host: how will we hear from the interior secretary next week? .uest: that is a good question it is unclear whether they are going to make his recognitions public. they are due to the president on thursday but that doesn't mean they are going to release them then. are we going to know next thursday echo will there be -- next thursday? will there be an announcement? president trump will have to decide whether to act on them or not so there will be another wait to see what steps are concretely taken. you -- asook at thank you look at secretary zinke's meeting, what is his position? guest: he will tell you he was a navy seal. he was on seal team six.
after he got out of the military, he went back to montana. he ran for the house. he was in the house during his second term and he was taken to become secretary. he is a westerner. he is familiar with some of the land issues. host: our guest is noelle straub. allen is joining us, east chicago, indiana. caller: good morning to both of you. enjoyed you for several years. i have a question that popped in my mind. the land that he wants to have checked over again has been sitting there for decades. i don't know if anybody has been taking note of it. it became protected under president obama. i'm wondering why now has this suddenly popped up?
there are people who have legitimate gripes. people who just want to increase their wealth by using this land for commercial purposes or could this be just another step for donald trump and attempting to rollback everything president obama signed? host: thank you. guest: that is a good question. a lot of it is backlash to president obama's designation. he was in his last weeks in office when he designated bears ears. it has been an effort in congress by some utah house members, called the public lands initiative. they try to pass legislation that would protect parts of bears ears. they would've done it through congress. by the end of the obama administration, they said, if congress can't get together and
pass something, we are just going to go ahead and the administration is going to designate the land. it is a backlash against president obama using his presidential authority. in april, president trump signed an executive order mandating this review, 27 of the largest monuments. host: this is from rick. a follow-up to your older point from jd reading. caller: -- guest: that is also a good question. we will see next week when the suggestions come out. if they decide to roll back some of the monuments, there will be a court case. they will have to decide whether
presidential proclamations are illegal. whether they can be rolled back. it will be a question for the courts to decide. four we are talking about federal agencies that are involved in the management of these lands. blm, the fish and wildlife noaa and the -- national park service. let's go to mike. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. we've got the socialization of cost and all of the stuff is ours. this is our piggy bank. you don't get a second chance at this. ourprivatization of gathered wealth. i personally don't want them to send me a check for what they stole out there because i would assume the minor the ground, but
when it is all said and done, the bureau of land management crimes go back as far as the eye can see. i cannot say anything of the top my head about the other three organizations, but if they well, howl of this so come we are in such a bind nationwide? there is no way these people can competently manage this,. i don't know if whether some sense -- some citizens could get together and make some moves but what we have got going now, it is a recipe for disaster. to cannot go out of your way screw things up. guest: it all goes back to a review of the federal government. if you think the government is competent and has good management skills and those agencies know what they are doing and have experts -- they do have people who are career experts who work on these issues
all their lives. some people think they are doing a fine job. some people out west they are not. it goes back to your views. host: another tweet. there is some photographs of those 10 monuments. you can read a full story. john from sweet home, oregon. caller: good morning. i have allergies right now. this has been -- every republican from the west has been assaulting the federal lands. incomments by our government the indian nations who have been reduced to nothing. take a look at colorado for the
beautiful experience of what gas expulsion has done. it is trashed. , theing that we touch commercial gain, the low hanging fruit. that is one of the big problems while we are at where we are now. stop.e got to simply stop. thank you very much. host: passion in that. guest: these issues really inflame people. that is great. you get people who are very interested. there been attempts by numerous state legislatures to take back some of the federal lands the state would manage it. 2012passed a law in
saying, the federal government must give us all federal lands back to the state by 2014. 2014 came and went and it didn't happen because that is not legal. it is only congress that can decide to give away federal lands. kind of a symbolic effort but it showed how frustrated people are. this headline from your colleagues over at bloomberg. is that part of the reason behind all this? guest: it is part of the debate for sure. there have been several monuments where they are cold deposits. that's there are cold deposits. one designated by president clinton and that is also in utah. the our coal reserves. people say he was try to lock up the coal reserves so they would not be developed. host: for those of you west of the mississippi.
give us a call. len from utah. caller: good morning. i would like to get statistics on how many members of the public are in favor of these rollbacks, because all the polling i see here in utah are divided.d the majority of utah want to maintain bears ears and maintaining the amount of federal land we currently have. that our four representatives in our two senators are bought and paid by the extractive industries in the ranching industries. band toas they eat the -- theye the public
beat the band to curse the public to join them and sell off the public lands, they have not convinced us. the public here generally is not nearly as in favor. i have been to rallies at the state capital. they may be one or two -- there may be one or two business owners who want to sell off public lands and remove the protections. 99% of the people there are always at the rallies in favor of maintaining the protections. host: you are calling from a state where the federal government owns over 40% of utah guest:. -- utah. i've seen polls that say an majority of voters want to keep these lands protected. however, the state legislature and the members of congress in utah are mostly in favor of
rolling back the protections, so it all comes down to the you vote for, right? if people favor the protections, they should vote for representatives who want to keep them. right now, most of the elected state and federal officials from utah are for rolling back some of the protections. host: we have been showing pictures, some incredible views, some historic and prehistoric areas that are being protected that are being protected -- there are a lot of cave dwellings. there are pottery -- there's a lot of native american artifacts . as you see the beautiful landscape and the species that are there, these areas are beautiful. host: let's go to paul. caller: i lived out west when i
was a kid. in new mexico. i live in the east now, but i go back a lot. it is a very fragile land. the government has spent a lot of money restocking wildlife that was driven out by grazing. i look at the difference between -- because i am a conservative but you've got guys out there who are griping that they don't get to graze their animals. the blm fees are so close to free that whoever didn't pay it is a jerk. not even all the way to these to where you have prairie or forced to land, the farmers by the land and they have to pay taxes and maintain it. they have to husband it correctly. i saw it first hand out west to
put the animals on the land, they overgrazed it. the natural wildlife is driven out. pretty often later on, the federal government has to spend a ton of money trying to restock the animals, but they have to wait until the land recovers which it needs eric areas -- which in eric areas, it takes a really long time. it comes down hard when it rains. it just runs down into a muddy creek somewhere. kind of mining, it was cool going up into the mountains in seeing the old mines. mining usually leaves a heck of a scar and generally speaking, they are not required by law to repair it properly. at where most of the fuel they take out of the ground goes. if it goes -- of his oil, goes
into the "market. the open world market. me like a bank account we are to keep in reserve so that if we don't get our renewable resources act together quickly, for future generations do have a little something to call on. anyway, the whole idea of a nearly free grazing area was the part that made me laugh. farmers in the less. parts of arid partsy -- less of this country have to grazing correctly or they don't make any money. host: thank you for sharing your stories. guest: the grazing debate is a big issue out west. the grazing fees on public land are lower than on private land, so they are lower.
the federal government, like this want of land where they allow grazing may not be suitable for any other purpose, so they do -- they put in place a process and fees to keep the land from being overgrazed. they do charge some fees in order to keep the lands managed well. is -- rights right in the fees are lower. host: there is quite the twitter debate. is that fair? guest: i am not sure they are equivalent. that is secured emissions to have the trucks around protecting the president is always important.
i don't think the two are equivalent. public lands are very different issue. that is more of a security issue. host: joining us from baltimore, good morning. caller: thanks for c-span. . am 90 years old world war ii veteran. i spent a lot of time in the denver area working for an aircraft company. some friends of people who were using public lands for grazing. aboutd them very careful not overgrazing it, just like cutting your throat. the problem now has escalated so much is the fact that they want to increase grazing because of this tremendous amount of beef that is demanded by china now that trump cut that deal with
china. as far as the mining goes, it is long since been lost that if you techniques that you face the land you have to restart it. thereis that true? guest: is a mining reclamation law. money companies are required to keep the reserve fund so that when they leave the mind just leave the mind, they have to fix it up. there are a lot of abandoned mines out west that are leaking pollution everyday. that goes toward fixing up those mines. there's a great demand. there's a lot of mines and is a process getting to the mall. it is a big project. host: from the atlantic.com, there's this headline.
you can see the area we are talking about west of the mississippi. maria cantwell with the hearing earlier this year and questions to ryan zinke. ask my colleague -- >> my colleague and i were concerned about the strategy, concerned about the hanford reach monument in the state of washington. there are other areas. it of the trump administration less than 100 days to launch this war on 111 years of bipartisan land conservation which began with president roosevelt's leadership. the most glaring example is the attack on the entities act and bears ears national monument in particular. trying to roll back bears ears is a taxpayer waste especially at a time when the administration is proposing significant staff cutbacks. in my opinion, secretary zinke
is really -- another management designation for bears ears as an .ffront to tribes these tribes have spent years working to protect these lands that i believe that any action by this administration to undermine the protection for bears ears or any other national monument is illegal. i will strongly oppose any legislators -- legislative attempt to weaken this status. host: what is she referring to? guest: she is referring to the bears ears is nation that president obama made. president trump's order to review those. secretary zinke he already came out and said when he gives his recommendation next week, he will recommend checking bears ears. ist is the one monument he wanting to make management changes.
the comments of senator maria cantwell on our website. i would like to tell you about my experience at bears ears. i went out on the four corners vacation last march. i stayed in blanding which is the nearest town to bears ears. they have a wonderful museum there. they celebrate the anasazi heritage. i've been to chaco canyon. was -- it is which not a grazing area. it may have oil. it being awas over free recreation area. they had all-terrain vehicles that were running wild, running the land, no supervision, no
protection, the security. this was very pristine area. we also had -- i was really concerned. -- some some aztec anasazi ruins there were just simply fenced off, not protected. there is an issue with unlimited recreation and ungoverned recreation. host: this is one of the photographs of bears ears in utah. let's get a response. guest: atv routings through protected areas has been a problem. these areas are vast and there's not that many law-enforcement officials so it is hard to keep. people go in and make their own trails and ride with a want. hard to crack down on that.
it is illegal in certain spots but has been going on. bears ears, secretary zinke has recognized that there are certain areas with the indian ruins that should be protected. will keephood is he the monument designation for those areas where there is key historic items that they want to be protected. host: i want to share this one photograph. you can see how beautiful it is and also thrill seekers. those who try to use the area for repelling and zip lining. guest: looks like they are having a good time. host: let's go to dan. caller: good morning steve. years ago, heard part of a native american song and it went kind of like, we don't inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
true.k that is the exploiters and profiteers that would do to the land what they could to stuff their wallets, they have been with us for eternity. we have got to keep a close eye on them. you all have a good day. host: we will go to katrina join us from maryland. think maybe a previous caller asked this. fromnation going away federal lands is the primary reason for development, why now? my second question is secretary against theted endangered species act. for the first time in four decades, the other grizzly bear is taken off the endangered species list along with other
animals. does this have something to do with -- if we don't have endangered species on the land, they can be developed? host: thank you, katrina. guest: endangered species are taken into account when federal land protections are put into place. there is a desert tortoise that is found in some of these monuments that is especially protected. endangered species are the concern. monument are not the zynga did --ely to protect species monuments are not designated solely to protect species. april, thisn statement from ryan zinke. reads -- ex -- it reads.
beauty from like land, florida. i am calling because my beloved. grand canyon is fine. it hasn't been that many years since the national forest was [inaudible]onument those are two places that can never be fixed. arizona where the majority of them are. they go in there and start building in tearing of the land, that is the end. my favorite place in the whole , you have to climb up the rocks to get up there and
there's a lean to and inside you find places where they ground their corn. it is surrounded by crass. do you think that's surrounded by grass. do you think anybody out there to make money cares about it at all? no they don't. as far as building, you go to tucson and look where they copper mined. they don't fix those where they are done. that mountain is gone. no, don't do this. host: thank you for the call. guest: that is the argument that one side is making. these precious places to precious to be developed. to some extent, secretary zinke has rolled out any change at all to six of the 27 monuments that are under review. only a handful of them will be
changed. it remains to be seen how much they are going to want it changed. bears ears, over one million acres involved. sandy beach, another regular viewer has this. guest: that is entirely up to congress. the federal government has what it has now been congress is fully -- the only one with authority to transfer or dispose of land. the united states has what it has in stock and it is up to congress if we want to sell or transfer any of those lands. p lee vote for, they are going to be making these decisions.
-- people you vote for, they are going to be making these decisions. host: joining us from ormond beach, florida. good morning. go ahead please. caller: the proof is in what the budget cuts. , these have parks all been cut way back. wonderfulen burns, a film maker, made documentaries about the civil war. he did the one about the national parks. they showed these old photographs of these rich land barons riding horses through the national parks, celebrating over what -- salivating over what they could use for their own benefit and we have this in florida called blue springs estates park -- blue springs state park. it is a beautiful, pristine. they want to put in sessions,
hotdog stands. they removed a restaurant that had been there for 80 years run by family that cap giving natural. as farce trump. he talks about his -- as far as trump, talks about his sons being outdoorsman. they are trophy hunters. there was a dead leopard. they even were killing baby elephants. no. this is got to stop. -- this has got to stop. i have never been more emotional about anything in my life. i have grandchildren. i want to have something left for them. it is all about money. the republicans have been doing this for year. bush and cheney try to get into our pockets -- into our parks with more timber and coal. if they don't fund whatever it it is public
schools are parks, if they don't fund it, it starts to deteriorate. they say, it is falling apart, we have to go in and fix it. they have been pulling this for years. they are going to take away what is precious. host: thank you for the call. to your point and the other call us, what is your overall take away? what is your sense? guest: they are passionate. these issues are controversial. it is kind of great that people really care. the public lands are owned by all americans. we should all have a say in how they are managed and run. it is great that people have such a strong interest and are passionate about it. couple ofill take a more phone calls and then we will open our phone lines in here from you for the next hour at 8:00 eastern. caller: how are you doing, c-span?
glad you guys are on. you said that trump is the only changedt that is ever statue oresidents order -- is that what you said? guest: so far no president has ever try to eliminate the monument that a previous president created. some presidents have shrunk the size of monuments. the last president to do that was jfk. congress has passed a law in 1976 that conservationists argued do not allow monuments to be shrunk anymore. no president has ever eliminated one. some presidents have shrunk them but it hasn't happened since 1963. host: explained the court case that would follow. guest: it is going to be lively. three attorney general's,
washington state, california and new mexico have already threatened to sue if president trump tries to eliminate a monument in their state. the states would be suing the government -- the federal government. conservation groups said they are prepared to sue. what youk us through think the interior secretary is going to recommend. guest: it sounds like the majority of the 27 monuments will have no changes. bears ears will at least recommend reducing the size. we are hearing that grand staircase escalante in utah might face the biggest changes, possibly even elimination. that was designated by president clinton. that was controversial at the time. there will be a handful of those monuments that will see changes. host: are.
if people want to follow you on twitter, where can they go? guest: ee news. host: the national resources editor for e and e news. thank you for spending this last hour. guest: thank you for having me. will continue your comments, focusing on the issue of federal land and the question should federal- land be open to development? our phone lines are developed -- , mountaind as follows and pacific time, (202) 748-8000 and for eastern and central time, (202) 748-8001. we are back in a moment. , 8:00 p.m.on c-span
eastern, a profile interview with secretary of health and human services john -- tom price. >> i think my passion for trying to help people and my passion for a healthy society, this just feels like the culmination of a life's work. 20 plus years in clinical practice i had caring for patients overlapped with 20 plus years i had in the representative light, both the state senate and in congress. to have the opportunity at this time, this pivotal time in our lead thisistory, to remarkable department is as fulfilling as anything. p.m. by ad at 8:30 conversation with supreme court justice elaine a kagan. are not ap we
democracy, we are a constitutional democracy. that man said the judiciary has a important role to play in policing the boundaries of the other divisions. i can make the judiciary and unpopular set of people when they say to a governor or president or congress, you cannot do that because it is just not within your constitutional powers. >> watch on c-span and c-span.org, and listen using the free c-span radio app. c-span's coverage of the solar eclipse on monday starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern with the washington journal live at goddard space center in greenbelt, maryland. our guests are a nasa research scientist and the chief scientist at goddard. at noon eastern we join nasa tv as they provide live views of
the eclipse shadow passing over north america. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, viewer reaction to this rare solar eclipse over the continental united states. live all-day coverage of the solar eclipse on monday on c-span and c-span.org. listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> washington journal continues. a week away about before the interior secretary makes recommendations to president trump on the possibility of rescinding or sizing down some of the federal land that president obama and previous presidents have dedicated. next halfon for the hour -- should federal land be open for development? for those in the pacific and western time zones